Sandy

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 60

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 152

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: D Holderness

Representation:

Sandy does not have the infrastructure to support this and the loss to the Green lands of fields and open space is too much. I strongly oppose this size of development and investment should be made in other ways such as renovating old properties and spreading the load with other areas in Bedfordshire.

Full text:

Sandy does not have the infrastructure to support this and the loss to the Green lands of fields and open space is too much. I strongly oppose this size of development and investment should be made in other ways such as renovating old properties and spreading the load with other areas in Bedfordshire.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 158

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Ian Anker

Representation:

I am writing to object about the plans for Sandy as I feel that these will totally swamp an area which is already struggling to cope with the existing amount of housing and lack of supporting infrastructure (e.g. GP surgeries etc). When compared with the tiny number of additional developments elsewhere in the county - Ampthill, Shefford, Dunstable etc - spring to mind - I am concerned that the powers that be have absolutely no understanding of the issues that are facing local residents NOW - let alone in the future if the proposed number of houses are built.

Full text:

I am writing to object about the plans for Sandy as I feel that these will totally swamp an area which is already struggling to cope with the existing amount of housing and lack of supporting infrastructure (e.g. GP surgeries etc). When compared with the tiny number of additional developments elsewhere in the county - Ampthill, Shefford, Dunstable etc - spring to mind - I am concerned that the powers that be have absolutely no understanding of the issues that are facing local residents NOW - let alone in the future if the proposed number of houses are built.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 159

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: mr mark howlett

Representation:

ALP320. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Full text:

ALP320. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 160

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: mr mark howlett

Representation:

ALP319. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Full text:

ALP319. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 161

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: mr mark howlett

Representation:

NLP084. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Full text:

NLP084. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 162

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: mr mark howlett

Representation:

NLP414. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Full text:

NLP414. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 163

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: mr mark howlett

Representation:

NLP452. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Full text:

NLP452. I believe that there is terrible pollution on the A1 already without making the situation worse. The town cannot expand any further North as there are very poor routes South which are heavily congested already

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 164

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: mr mark howlett

Representation:

ALP133. I would support this development but a road needs to be put in place that will allow the traffic from the North of the town wanting to go south to bypass the town and join the A1 past Beeston in the short term with a proper bypass being delivered before any housing is considered in Sandy

Full text:

ALP133. I would support this development but a road needs to be put in place that will allow the traffic from the North of the town wanting to go south to bypass the town and join the A1 past Beeston in the short term with a proper bypass being delivered before any housing is considered in Sandy

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 591

Received: 08/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Craig Thompson

Representation:

NLP249, NLP084,NLP414 & NLP461

I object to proposal of making more industrial space avail to the north of Sandy. Too many large truck regularly block Sunderland Road today, this will only get worse. Only if a new, direct access to and from the A1 is provided would i consider retracting my objection

Full text:

NLP249, NLP084,NLP414 & NLP461

I object to proposal of making more industrial space avail to the north of Sandy. Too many large truck regularly block Sunderland Road today, this will only get worse. Only if a new, direct access to and from the A1 is provided would i consider retracting my objection

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 605

Received: 08/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Nigel Bush

Representation:

The plans for developing this area should not be considered while major infrastructure decisions (i.e. A1 upgrade/re-routing, east-west rail link route, A428 upgrade) have been completed.
Other issues such as flooding and rural land loss should also be looked at in more detail.

Full text:

NLP414 Land north of Sandy
The consultation appraisal states that any development in this area is an "infrastructure led" opportunity but the infractructure does not yet exist.

Development here would only make worse an already intolerable situation with regard to A1 traffic flow, local commuter parking problems, health & educational services resources.

The concept is premature and development should not be considered until the capacity of the A1 throughout the non- motorway stretch from Baldock to Alconbury is improved, hopefully by a by pass, or some other safe and effective means.
There no definite timescale for the provision of the east-west railway, nor has there been any local consultation on a possible route, how much land would be required, and where, so it is quite impossible to design a new settlement around an unknown location for a railway.

Assumption that East/West railway will go ahead and through this development - both appear to rely on the provision of each other to make them viable

There does not appear to have been any investigation of the impact of new development upon the social infrastructure of Sandy, Everton and Tempsford in respect of medical, educational and recreational facilities, nor of physical interaction with these settlements.

Additional impact of air pollution in this area additional building and commuter travel to potential rail station will increase traffic in proposed densely populated area.

Impact on local farmers', job losses, reduction in fresh food production due to loss of agricultural land.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 608

Received: 08/08/2017

Respondent: Janet Bush

Representation:

Large housing developments in areas that are close to the A1 and the railway should not be considered until plans for the A1 upgrade/re-routing and east-west rail link have been finalised.

Large housing developments on rural and agricultural land, where there is no infrastructure to support them, should not be permitted.

Full text:

NLP414 Land north of Sandy

The development of this large land area is premature. Until the plans for the A1 upgrade/re-routing and the east-west rail link have been finalised, any housing plans for the land close to these road/rail routes should not be considered for development.

Development here would only make worse an already intolerable situation with regard to A1 traffic flow, local commuter parking problems, health & educational services resources.

There does not appear to have been any investigation of the impact of new development upon the social infrastructure of Sandy, Everton and Tempsford in respect of medical, educational and recreational facilities, nor of physical interaction with these settlements.

Additional impact of air pollution in this area, additional building and commuter travel to potential rail station will increase traffic in proposed densely populated area.

Impact on local farmers, job losses, reduction in fresh food production due to loss of agricultural land.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1244

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Sandy Town Council

Representation:

ALP319 ALP320 NLP084 NLP249 NLP414

Sites still under consideration
Any development north of Sandy would create unsustainable disjointed community, especially given issues around A1 access
Risks creating corridor development/dormitory town, to detriment of Sandy's town centre
Object to housing development on above sites, would support creation of industrial/scientific area to north
Housing should be allocated east of Sandy
NLP248 rejected as railway line acts as barrier, other towns (Biggleswade) have developed either side of line
Long-term sustainability of Sandy must be ensured by Local Plan, development east would create a more centralised function town, positive impacts for existing town centre

Full text:

See attachment for comments from Sandy Town Council

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1265

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Ms Susan Evans

Representation:

ALP 320,319,375,NLP414
Healthcare ,emergency services overstretched
Police stations closed
Detrimental effect on landscape
Farm land lost
Utilities, water, gas, electricity unable to cope
Scant public transport
Village of Everton will become urbanised and lose character
Current schools not adequate
Increase in traffic roads unable to cope

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1441

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Peter Wootton

Representation:

NLP414

I strongly object to this mass development.

Full text:

NLP414

I strongly object to this mass development.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1443

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Peter Wootton

Representation:

NLP414

I strongly object to this proposed development.

Full text:

NLP414

I strongly object to this proposed development.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1445

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Peter Wootton

Representation:

NLP264

I strongly object to this development

Full text:

NLP264

I strongly object to this development

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2257

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Exley

Representation:

Various Objections with regard to the following sites: NLP248, NLP497, NLP077, ALP375, ALP133, ALP319, ALP320, NLP084, NLP249, NLP414 (and NLP461 - cannot locate this number in your Site Assessment Forms - additionally cannot locate number NLP084 on your maps - am assuming that this is the same piece of land)

Full text:

Proposed Site: NLP248

A) General

i) This site (along with the other proposed development sites nearby - ALP133, NLP077, NLP365 and NLP497), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.

B) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces which are used for leisure activities.

Within this area we have numerous footpath's, bridleways, and other rights of way. This includes the Greensand Ridge Walk.

The area is a haven for ramblers, cyclists and equestrians who will have, if these proposals go-ahead, very few non-urban areas where they can walk, run, cycle and ride in safety in a rural location.

The government, and other legislative bodies, or actively encouraging leisure pursuits/activities and to the erode the countryside in this fashion is counter-productive. There are several built leisure centres nearby - we do not need another at the cost of our countryside.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open spaces, but also specifically with regard to the greensand ridge.

In your "Shaping where you live 2035 - Time to have your say" document you state;

"And of course, will be protecting important areas like the greensand ridge, the forest of Marston Vale, the Ivel Valley, and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, enhancing where possible and increasing access".

You go on to say
"Will limit the impact of development on these important areas ".

I cannot see in your proposed site and intention to either protect or limit the impact of development on these important areas.

C) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided. It also identifies that there are areas of ancient woodland and county wildlife sites. Although this area has not been designated as being something 'special' it is a wonderful wooded area - and has to me intrinsic value.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats, and woodland. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

D) historic and archaeological sites

The community and the council have a social responsibility to preserve, enhance and educate future generations about a historic, archaeological, and listed buildings.

Nothing specific has been found in this area at present - however I believe that there could be something of importance here as the site is very close to Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road.

This area should not to be allowed to be lost to a housing development.

I am therefore objecting to the draft plan on the grounds that we will irrevocably lose possible historically significant sites.

Even if they are not touched they will become subject to increased degradation from pollution factors, and ultimately therefore be lost anyway.

E) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site: NLP497

A) General

i) This site (along with the other proposed development sites nearby - ALP133, NLP077, NLP365 and NLP248), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.

B) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces which are used for leisure activities.

Within this area we have numerous footpath's, bridleways, and other rights of way. This includes the Greensand Ridge Walk.

The area is a haven for ramblers, cyclists and equestrians who will have, if these proposals go-ahead, very few non-urban areas where they can walk, run, cycle and ride in safety in a rural location.

The government, and other legislative bodies, or actively encouraging leisure pursuits/activities and to the erode the countryside in this fashion is counter-productive. There are several built leisure centres nearby - we do not need another at the cost of our countryside.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open spaces, but also specifically with regard to the greensand ridge.

In your "Shaping where you live 2035 - Time to have your say" document you state;

"And of course, will be protecting important areas like the greensand ridge, the forest of Marston Vale, the Ivel Valley, and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, enhancing where possible and increasing access".

You go on to say
"Will limit the impact of development on these important areas ".

I cannot see in your proposed site and intention to either protect or limit the impact of development on these important areas.

C) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided. It also identifies that there are areas of ancient woodland and county wildlife sites. Although this area has not been designated as being something 'special' it is a wonderful wooded area - and has to me intrinsic value.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats, and woodland. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

D) historic and archaeological sites

The community and the council have a social responsibility to preserve, enhance and educate future generations about a historic, archaeological, and listed buildings.

Nothing specific has been found in this area at present - however I believe that there could be something of importance here as the site is very close to Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road.

This area should not to be allowed to be lost to a housing development.

I am therefore objecting to the draft plan on the grounds that we will irrevocably lose possible historically significant sites.

Even if they are not touched they will become subject to increased degradation from pollution factors, and ultimately therefore be lost anyway.

E) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site: NLP077

A) General

i) This site (along with the other proposed development sites nearby - ALP133, NLP248, NLP365 and NLP497), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.

B) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces which are used for leisure activities.

Within this area we have numerous footpath's, bridleways, and other rights of way. This includes the Greensand Ridge Walk.

The area is a haven for ramblers, cyclists and equestrians who will have, if these proposals go-ahead, very few non-urban areas where they can walk, run, cycle and ride in safety in a rural location.

The government, and other legislative bodies, or actively encouraging leisure pursuits/activities and to the erode the countryside in this fashion is counter-productive. There are several built leisure centres nearby - we do not need another at the cost of our countryside.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open spaces, but also specifically with regard to the greensand ridge.

In your "Shaping where you live 2035 - Time to have your say" document you state;

"And of course, will be protecting important areas like the greensand ridge, the forest of Marston Vale, the Ivel Valley, and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, enhancing where possible and increasing access".

You go on to say
"Will limit the impact of development on these important areas ".

I cannot see in your proposed site and intention to either protect or limit the impact of development on these important areas.

C) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided. It also identifies that there are areas of ancient woodland and county wildlife sites. Although this area has not been designated as being something 'special' it is a wonderful wooded area - and has to me intrinsic value.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats, and woodland. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

D) historic and archaeological sites

The community and the council have a social responsibility to preserve, enhance and educate future generations about a historic, archaeological, and listed buildings.

Nothing specific has been found in this area at present - however I believe that there could be something of importance here as the site is very close to Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road.

This area should not to be allowed to be lost to a housing development.

I am therefore objecting to the draft plan on the grounds that we will irrevocably lose possible historically significant sites.

Even if they are not touched they will become subject to increased degradation from pollution factors, and ultimately therefore be lost anyway.

E) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site ALP133

A) General

i) This site (along with the other proposed development sites nearby - NLP077, NLP248, NLP365 and NLP497), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.

B) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces which are used for leisure activities.

Within this area we have numerous footpath's, bridleways, and other rights of way. This includes the Greensand Ridge Walk.

The area is a haven for ramblers, cyclists and equestrians who will have, if these proposals go-ahead, very few non-urban areas where they can walk, run, cycle and ride in safety in a rural location.

The government, and other legislative bodies, or actively encouraging leisure pursuits/activities and to the erode the countryside in this fashion is counter-productive. There are several built leisure centres nearby - we do not need another at the cost of our countryside.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open spaces, but also specifically with regard to the greensand ridge.

In your "Shaping where you live 2035 - Time to have your say" document you state;

"And of course, will be protecting important areas like the greensand ridge, the forest of Marston Vale, the Ivel Valley, and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, enhancing where possible and increasing access".

You go on to say
"Will limit the impact of development on these important areas ".

I cannot see in your proposed site and intention to either protect or limit the impact of development on these important areas.

C) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided. It also identifies that there are areas of ancient woodland and county wildlife sites. Although this area has not been designated as being something 'special' it is a wonderful wooded area - and has to me intrinsic value.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats, and woodland. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

D) historic and archaeological sites

The community and the council have a social responsibility to preserve, enhance and educate future generations about a historic, archaeological, and listed buildings.

Nothing specific has been found in this area at present - however I believe that there could be something of importance here as the site is very close to Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road.

This area should not to be allowed to be lost to a housing development.

I am therefore objecting to the draft plan on the grounds that we will irrevocably lose possible historically significant sites.

Even if they are not touched they will become subject to increased degradation from pollution factors, and ultimately therefore be lost anyway.

E) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.



Proposed Site NLP365

A) General

i) This site (along with the other proposed development sites nearby - NLP077, NLP248, ALP133 and NLP497), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.

B) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces which are used for leisure activities.

Within this area we have numerous footpath's, bridleways, and other rights of way. This includes the Greensand Ridge Walk.

The area is a haven for ramblers, cyclists and equestrians who will have, if these proposals go-ahead, very few non-urban areas where they can walk, run, cycle and ride in safety in a rural location.

The government, and other legislative bodies, or actively encouraging leisure pursuits/activities and to the erode the countryside in this fashion is counter-productive. There are several built leisure centres nearby - we do not need another at the cost of our countryside.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open spaces, but also specifically with regard to the greensand ridge.

In your "Shaping where you live 2035 - Time to have your say" document you state;

"And of course, will be protecting important areas like the greensand ridge, the forest of Marston Vale, the Ivel Valley, and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, enhancing where possible and increasing access".

You go on to say
"Will limit the impact of development on these important areas ".

I cannot see in your proposed site and intention to either protect or limit the impact of development on these important areas.

C) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided. It also identifies that there are areas of ancient woodland and county wildlife sites. Although this area has not been designated as being something 'special' it is a wonderful wooded area - and has to me intrinsic value.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats, and woodland. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

D) historic and archaeological sites

The community and the council have a social responsibility to preserve, enhance and educate future generations about a historic, archaeological, and listed buildings.

Nothing specific has been found in this area at present - however I believe that there could be something of importance here as the site is very close to Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road.

This area should not to be allowed to be lost to a housing development.

I am therefore objecting to the draft plan on the grounds that we will irrevocably lose possible historically significant sites.

Even if they are not touched they will become subject to increased degradation from pollution factors, and ultimately therefore be lost anyway.

E) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site ALP319

A) General

i) This site (along with its neighbouring sites NLP452, ALP320, ALP375, NLP084, NLP249, NLP414 (and NLP461 - cannot locate this number in your Site Assessment Forms - additionally cannot locate number ALP384 on your maps - am assuming that this is the same piece of land), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.


B) Coalescence

This site (along with its neighbouring sites - for these see my first objection above), if allowed to be developed, would create the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

A proportion of this area is good grade/quality farmland. This land should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site ALP320

A) General

i) This site (along with its neighbouring sites NLP452, ALP319, ALP375, NLP084, NLP249, NLP414 (and NLP461 - cannot locate this number in your Site Assessment Forms - additionally cannot locate number ALP384 on your maps - am assuming that this is the same piece of land), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.


B) Coalescence

This site (along with its neighbouring sites - for these see my first objection above), if allowed to be developed, would create the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

A proportion of this area is good grade/quality farmland. This land should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site NLP084

A) General

i) This site (along with its neighbouring sites NLP452, ALP319, ALP320, ALP375, NLP249, NLP414 (and NLP461 - cannot locate this number in your Site Assessment Forms - additionally cannot locate number ALP384 on your maps - am assuming that this is the same piece of land), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.


B) Coalescence

This site (along with its neighbouring sites - for these see my first objection above), if allowed to be developed, would create the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

A proportion of this area is good grade/quality farmland. This land should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.



Proposed Site NLP249

A) General

i) This site (along with its neighbouring sites NLP452, ALP319, ALP320, ALP375, NLP084, NLP414 (and NLP461 - cannot locate this number in your Site Assessment Forms - additionally cannot locate number ALP384 on your maps - am assuming that this is the same piece of land), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.


B) Coalescence

This site (along with its neighbouring sites - for these see my first objection above), if allowed to be developed, would create the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

A proportion of this area is good grade/quality farmland. This land should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site NLP414

A) General

i) This site (along with its neighbouring sites NLP452, ALP319, ALP320, ALP375, NLP084, NLP249 (and NLP461 - cannot locate this number in your Site Assessment Forms - additionally cannot locate number ALP384 on your maps - am assuming that this is the same piece of land), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.


B) Coalescence

This site (along with its neighbouring sites - for these see my first objection above), if allowed to be developed, would create the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

A proportion of this area is good grade/quality farmland. This land should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site NLP461 (ALP384?)

A) General

i) This site (along with its neighbouring sites NLP452, ALP319, ALP320, ALP375, NLP084, NLP249), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.


B) Coalescence

This site (along with its neighbouring sites - for these see my first objection above), if allowed to be developed, would create the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

A proportion of this area is good grade/quality farmland. This land should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.


Proposed Site ALP375

A) General

i) This site (along with its neighbouring sites NLP452, ALP319, ALP320, NLP414, NLP084, NLP249 (and NLP461 - cannot locate this number in your Site Assessment Forms - additionally cannot locate number ALP384 on your maps - am assuming that this is the same piece of land), if allowed to be developed, would see Sandy become grossly over developed. Taking this area of the Sandy countryside from a Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see this area become dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This proposed development is within the Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) which has has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.


B) Coalescence

This site (along with its neighbouring sites - for these see my first objection above), if allowed to be developed, would create the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open spaces.

I object to these proposed sites on the wider grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the area coupled with its neighbouring proposed development sites, is too large, and the developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

A proportion of this area is good grade/quality farmland. This land should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 2035 as it has very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution.

All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area, along with any neighbouring historical, listed buildings and other sites.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

F) Infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

G) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will increased in the area of this proposed development.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

H) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2277

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Goodyear

Representation:

Various Objections with regard to the following sites: NLP248, NLP497, NLP077, ALP375, ALP133, ALP319, ALP320, NLP084, NLP249, NLP414 and NLP461 (NLP084)

Full text:

Proposed Site: NLP248


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development will not protect the Greensand Ridge, or the Ivel Valley.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

iv) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

v) Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road would indicate that there is something of historical significance in the area and this should be protected. It should not be allowed to be built upon.

vi) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

vii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

viii) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.


Proposed Site: NLP497


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development will not protect the Greensand Ridge, or the Ivel Valley.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

iv) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

v) Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road would indicate that there is something of historical significance in the area and this should be protected. It should not be allowed to be built upon.

vi) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

vii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

viii) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.



Proposed Site: NLP077


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development will not protect the Greensand Ridge, or the Ivel Valley.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

iv) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

v) Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road would indicate that there is something of historical significance in the area and this should be protected. It should not be allowed to be built upon.

vi) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

vii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

viii) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.



Proposed Site ALP133


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development will not protect the Greensand Ridge, or the Ivel Valley.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

iv) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

v) Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road would indicate that there is something of historical significance in the area and this should be protected. It should not be allowed to be built upon.

vi) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

vii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

viii) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.


Proposed Site NLP365


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development will not protect the Greensand Ridge, or the Ivel Valley.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

iv) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

v) Ceasers Camp and the Roman Road would indicate that there is something of historical significance in the area and this should be protected. It should not be allowed to be built upon.

vi) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

vii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

viii) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.





Proposed Site ALP319


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastoral farmland within this area.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

ix) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.




Proposed Site ALP320


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastoral farmland within this area.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

ix) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.



Proposed Site NLP084


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastoral farmland within this area.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

ix) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.




Proposed Site NLP249


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastoral farmland within this area.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

ix) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.



Proposed Site NLP414


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastoral farmland within this area.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

ix) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.



Proposed Site NLP461 (ALP384?)


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastoral farmland within this area.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

ix) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.



Proposed Site ALP375


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastoral farmland within this area.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

ix) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2493

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: T Hirons

Representation:

I object to this.

Full text:

I object to this.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2494

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: j Donnelly

Representation:

I object to this.

Full text:

I object to this.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2739

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Sam Franklin

Agent: Mr Sam Franklin

Representation:

NLP208
The site is within a small hamlet, 'Georgetown', on the edge of Sandy. There is excellent, easy vehicular and pedestrian access to the town, schools and services, via the A1 underpass.

This site is a road frontage and logical extension to the settlement.

Full text:

NLP208
The site is within a small hamlet, 'Georgetown', on the edge of Sandy. There is excellent, easy vehicular and pedestrian access to the town, schools and services, via the A1 underpass.

This site is a road frontage and logical extension to the settlement.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2832

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Kay Walker

Representation:

Expanding Sandy so it becomes a suburb of this twee sounding Tempsford Market Town will have an adverse effect on property prices as the character of Sandy will change for the worse. It will also create an even greater pressure on our already stretched infrastructure and healthcare services (there is a shortage of GPs in the NHS so the current 2 practices cannot just employ more GPs). Sandy and the surrounding area is a small town and the proposed mass development will bring with it increased traffic, pollution, crime and greater flood risk.

Full text:

I strongly object to development of such a great size in the Sunderland Road & Girtford areas of Sandy. Sandy is a small town - the very reason we moved here. The proposals will increased the size of the town, yet the town already struggles with traffic (particularly when there is a problem on the A1), there is a lack of station parking for commuters and there is a woefully inadequate number of GPs or Dentists serving the town. Expanding the town as proposed will compound the problems we already experience. It will also increase the level of traffic on the A1, adding to pollution levels and the gridlock we experience every day at rush hour. We purchased a house on the edge of Fallowfields to ensure we were within a couple of minutes walk of open countryside to walk our dog and yet this plan would put us right in the middle of a massive urban sprawl.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2870

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: miss charlotte bettles

Representation:

I object to the development on tempsford farm land by everton road

AND

I object to the proposed new railway between sandy and tempsford

Full text:

I am objecting to the site proposed for the site on tempsford farming land under sandy,
I have big concerns on the loss of countryside , farm land, the effect on the wildlife , all the mentioned are important parts of the planet and without them we would be in trouble. people with profits to be had have no care or thought for these things, but also I object because the infrastructure of roads is not there, there is NOT ENOUGH police to cover the villages at the moment as I have personal experience of the police not being able to get to us when being burgled and cars being broken into ect, so how will thousands of new homes help this, also the pollution the noise the sewage .
also if you have your way there will be no farm land between tempsford and sandy it will just all join up which at the moment is a 3 mmile gap in some places probable less, that would be a disaster,
I OBJECT to the RAILWAY PROPOSAL IN BETWEEN SANDY AND TEMPSFORD!!!! again your taking un spoilt farm land again wildlife will have a big loss , but why there,there is NO roads no nothing there apart from beautiful farm land, the only reason big money profit to be had on the houses that you can push on after it has been built. you have a site just south of sandy not to far away from the station that is there now that is not used farmland that is easy to get to from the a1 as its is not that far off and would not spoil prime farmland and disturb kill thousand of wild life.
going back to the tempsford side for the station, again the roads that would follow it would be ugly un necessary disruption pollution, noise and if the police struggle in rural areas crime will just increase , not only that how would you think people could afford to use the trains after you have built all this as the costs are greedy and unaffordable,

instead of the big earning people who decide this choosing places away from where they live so they don't have to have all this spoil there green countryside , they should think of spreading such developments all over the counties so there smaller less intrusive less disruptive . again the costs are not affordable so local people are pushed away from their home villages because normal people can not afford £200.000 plus you should build affordable houses, some one bed some two bed and not rabbit hutches at £100,000 or less, and have some for rent again give the local people first chance , you cant get on the housing list if your just normal working people needing a home.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2887

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Ms Anne-Marie Hetherington

Representation:

I object to the scale of development in Sandy, especially as it will create an extended settlement through to Tempsford. This area is unsuited to this level of development and I fundamentally object to the unfairness of concentrating all the new homes needed in Central Beds in one area; there should be a more equitable distribution of development. There is insufficient infrastructure, unclear transport plans and risk of widening the flood plains.

Full text:

NLP 414, NLP 084
I am writing to object strongly to the proposed developments as listed above. I do so on the grounds that this area of Central Beds has already been targeted for widespread development, to the detriment of the environment. These proposed sites would, in effect, create a large settlement from Sandy up to the new proposed sites at Tempsford and Everton. We do not have the infrastructure for such a development, nor do we have any guarantees that it would be forthcoming. These developments would create a potential flooding risk and create major congestion in an area that does not need this high level of development. Our county requires an equitable distribution of new homes, not to have one area targeted while others are left relatively unmarked.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2913

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Toby Venables

Representation:

OBJECTION: APL320

- Historic England describes plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with regard to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area.

- The whole area is prone to flooding. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

- Development is constrained by a lack of services and facilities, including healthcare, education, emergency services, retail/convenience, and leisure facilities.

- Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement.

* The rise in pollution and congestion would be unacceptable.

Full text:

OBJECTION: APL320

I write to lodge my objections in the strongest possible terms. Overall, the entire area, including APL320, is not set up for or appropriate for this staggering level of building. This area has already seen an increase in house building, including large sites at Potton and Biggleswade, so it is not as though CB is not doing its fair share in terms of finding space for homes for the future.

A few key points suggest this proposal is unworkable and wholly inappropriate both for residents already living here and for those who may end up living here in the future:

* The Historic Environment Planning Adviser at Historic England describes the plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with their regards to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area. The council's own archaeologist states that allocation of this site would be inappropriate given the historic significance. Multi-period archaeological remains are known to survive in the area.

* The whole area is prone to flooding, with existing houses and field flooding regularly, especially in winter. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

In summary of these last two points I quote from CBCs' own report on Tempsford (Appendix B, Area B Assessments): "The settlement contains sensitive environmental receptors including best and most versatile agricultural land, County Wildlife Sites and priority habitats. Tempsford (west) is located entirely located in flood zone. The settlement also contains designated heritage assets in the form of listed buildings and a Conservation Area.
Development in the west is constrained by flood risk, locally designated biodiversity (CWS) and Priority Habitats, as well as the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Networks.
TEMPSFORD SUMMARY
Capacity: Low
Development is constrained by a lack of easily accessible services and facilities, particularly healthcare, retail / convenience, and leisure facilities. Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement, as well as sensitive heritage settings.
Whilst development of a sufficient scale could support improved service and facility provisions, and the environmental constraints can largely be avoided in the east of the settlement, development at this scale would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the rural character and appearance of the settlement. Whilst small scale development could avoid such problems it is also likely to increase reliance on the private vehicle."

* The rise in pollution and congestion created by so many new homes would inevitably be huge.

* It is noted that your own plan says that stage two is to "lobby for infrastructure". The fact that these proposals are being put forward at present with such woefully inadequate planning for infrastructure is, frankly, staggering. Due to underfunding, schools and medical providers are already at breaking point; new towns such as Cambourne already prove that such places without adequate recreation facilities become soulless and unpleasant places to live. Which leads me to my final point:

* The Campaign To Protect Rural England's statement on your proposals reveal that you are offering far, far more than the government *actually requests* in terms of houses built in this area, and that this is attached to payments you expect to receive relating to the number of houses built, to make up for central government cuts. This approach would seem to be unsustainable and illogical in the extreme, and partly explains the slapdash, reckless and badly prepared approach to infrastructure noted above, not to mention the rush to bulldoze over acres and acres of rural land. Further more, CPRE also highlight: that the proposals to build on greenbelt land lack the required justifications; that a massive 30% variation in the houses proposed to be built at this stage suggests a sloppy and ill-thought-out approach to the planning of this project; and that CBC is relying heavily on large number of commuters to purchase and live in these homes, which is the least sustainable kind of development, and leads to the erosion of existing communities.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2914

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Toby Venables

Representation:

OBJECTION: APL319

- Historic England describes plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with regard to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area.

- The whole area is prone to flooding. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

- Development is constrained by a lack of services and facilities, including healthcare, education, emergency services, retail/convenience, and leisure facilities.

- Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement.

* The rise in pollution and congestion would be unacceptable.

Full text:

OBJECTION: APL319

I write to lodge my objections in the strongest possible terms. Overall, the entire area, including APL319, is not set up for or appropriate for this staggering level of building. This area has already seen an increase in house building, including large sites at Potton and Biggleswade, so it is not as though CB is not doing its fair share in terms of finding space for homes for the future.

A few key points suggest this proposal is unworkable and wholly inappropriate both for residents already living here and for those who may end up living here in the future:

* The Historic Environment Planning Adviser at Historic England describes the plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with their regards to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area. The council's own archaeologist states that allocation of this site would be inappropriate given the historic significance. Multi-period archaeological remains are known to survive in the area.

* The whole area is prone to flooding, with existing houses and field flooding regularly, especially in winter. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

In summary of these last two points I quote from CBCs' own report on Tempsford (Appendix B, Area B Assessments): "The settlement contains sensitive environmental receptors including best and most versatile agricultural land, County Wildlife Sites and priority habitats. Tempsford (west) is located entirely located in flood zone. The settlement also contains designated heritage assets in the form of listed buildings and a Conservation Area.
Development in the west is constrained by flood risk, locally designated biodiversity (CWS) and Priority Habitats, as well as the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Networks.
TEMPSFORD SUMMARY
Capacity: Low
Development is constrained by a lack of easily accessible services and facilities, particularly healthcare, retail / convenience, and leisure facilities. Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement, as well as sensitive heritage settings.
Whilst development of a sufficient scale could support improved service and facility provisions, and the environmental constraints can largely be avoided in the east of the settlement, development at this scale would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the rural character and appearance of the settlement. Whilst small scale development could avoid such problems it is also likely to increase reliance on the private vehicle."

* The rise in pollution and congestion created by so many new homes would inevitably be huge.

* It is noted that your own plan says that stage two is to "lobby for infrastructure". The fact that these proposals are being put forward at present with such woefully inadequate planning for infrastructure is, frankly, staggering. Due to underfunding, schools and medical providers are already at breaking point; new towns such as Cambourne already prove that such places without adequate recreation facilities become soulless and unpleasant places to live. Which leads me to my final point:

* The Campaign To Protect Rural England's statement on your proposals reveal that you are offering far, far more than the government *actually requests* in terms of houses built in this area, and that this is attached to payments you expect to receive relating to the number of houses built, to make up for central government cuts. This approach would seem to be unsustainable and illogical in the extreme, and partly explains the slapdash, reckless and badly prepared approach to infrastructure noted above, not to mention the rush to bulldoze over acres and acres of rural land. Further more, CPRE also highlight: that the proposals to build on greenbelt land lack the required justifications; that a massive 30% variation in the houses proposed to be built at this stage suggests a sloppy and ill-thought-out approach to the planning of this project; and that CBC is relying heavily on large number of commuters to purchase and live in these homes, which is the least sustainable kind of development, and leads to the erosion of existing communities.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2918

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Toby Venables

Representation:

OBJECTION: APL375

- Historic England describes plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with regard to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area.

- The whole area is prone to flooding. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

- Development is constrained by a lack of services and facilities, including healthcare, education, emergency services, retail/convenience, and leisure facilities.

- Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement.

* The rise in pollution and congestion would be unacceptable.

Full text:

OBJECTION: APL375

I write to lodge my objections in the strongest possible terms. Overall, the entire area, including APL375, is not set up for or appropriate for this staggering level of building. This area has already seen an increase in house building, including large sites at Potton and Biggleswade, so it is not as though CB is not doing its fair share in terms of finding space for homes for the future.

A few key points suggest this proposal is unworkable and wholly inappropriate both for residents already living here and for those who may end up living here in the future:

* The Historic Environment Planning Adviser at Historic England describes the plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with their regards to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area. The council's own archaeologist states that allocation of this site would be inappropriate given the historic significance. Multi-period archaeological remains are known to survive in the area.

* The whole area is prone to flooding, with existing houses and field flooding regularly, especially in winter. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

In summary of these last two points I quote from CBCs' own report on Tempsford (Appendix B, Area B Assessments): "The settlement contains sensitive environmental receptors including best and most versatile agricultural land, County Wildlife Sites and priority habitats. Tempsford (west) is located entirely located in flood zone. The settlement also contains designated heritage assets in the form of listed buildings and a Conservation Area.
Development in the west is constrained by flood risk, locally designated biodiversity (CWS) and Priority Habitats, as well as the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Networks.
TEMPSFORD SUMMARY
Capacity: Low
Development is constrained by a lack of easily accessible services and facilities, particularly healthcare, retail / convenience, and leisure facilities. Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement, as well as sensitive heritage settings.
Whilst development of a sufficient scale could support improved service and facility provisions, and the environmental constraints can largely be avoided in the east of the settlement, development at this scale would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the rural character and appearance of the settlement. Whilst small scale development could avoid such problems it is also likely to increase reliance on the private vehicle."

* The rise in pollution and congestion created by so many new homes would inevitably be huge.

* It is noted that your own plan says that stage two is to "lobby for infrastructure". The fact that these proposals are being put forward at present with such woefully inadequate planning for infrastructure is, frankly, staggering. Due to underfunding, schools and medical providers are already at breaking point; new towns such as Cambourne already prove that such places without adequate recreation facilities become soulless and unpleasant places to live. Which leads me to my final point:

* The Campaign To Protect Rural England's statement on your proposals reveal that you are offering far, far more than the government *actually requests* in terms of houses built in this area, and that this is attached to payments you expect to receive relating to the number of houses built, to make up for central government cuts. This approach would seem to be unsustainable and illogical in the extreme, and partly explains the slapdash, reckless and badly prepared approach to infrastructure noted above, not to mention the rush to bulldoze over acres and acres of rural land. Further more, CPRE also highlight: that the proposals to build on greenbelt land lack the required justifications; that a massive 30% variation in the houses proposed to be built at this stage suggests a sloppy and ill-thought-out approach to the planning of this project; and that CBC is relying heavily on large number of commuters to purchase and live in these homes, which is the least sustainable kind of development, and leads to the erosion of existing communities.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2920

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Toby Venables

Representation:

OBJECTION: NPL414

- Historic England describes plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with regard to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area.

- The whole area is prone to flooding. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

- Development is constrained by a lack of services and facilities, including healthcare, education, emergency services, retail/convenience, and leisure facilities.

- Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement.

* The rise in pollution and congestion would be unacceptable.

Full text:

OBJECTION: NPL414

I write to lodge my objections in the strongest possible terms. Overall, the entire area, including NPL414, is not set up for or appropriate for this staggering level of building. This area has already seen an increase in house building, including large sites at Potton and Biggleswade, so it is not as though CB is not doing its fair share in terms of finding space for homes for the future.

A few key points suggest this proposal is unworkable and wholly inappropriate both for residents already living here and for those who may end up living here in the future:

* The Historic Environment Planning Adviser at Historic England describes the plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with their regards to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area. The council's own archaeologist states that allocation of this site would be inappropriate given the historic significance. Multi-period archaeological remains are known to survive in the area.

* The whole area is prone to flooding, with existing houses and field flooding regularly, especially in winter. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

In summary of these last two points I quote from CBCs' own report on Tempsford (Appendix B, Area B Assessments): "The settlement contains sensitive environmental receptors including best and most versatile agricultural land, County Wildlife Sites and priority habitats. Tempsford (west) is located entirely located in flood zone. The settlement also contains designated heritage assets in the form of listed buildings and a Conservation Area.
Development in the west is constrained by flood risk, locally designated biodiversity (CWS) and Priority Habitats, as well as the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Networks.
TEMPSFORD SUMMARY
Capacity: Low
Development is constrained by a lack of easily accessible services and facilities, particularly healthcare, retail / convenience, and leisure facilities. Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement, as well as sensitive heritage settings.
Whilst development of a sufficient scale could support improved service and facility provisions, and the environmental constraints can largely be avoided in the east of the settlement, development at this scale would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the rural character and appearance of the settlement. Whilst small scale development could avoid such problems it is also likely to increase reliance on the private vehicle."

* The rise in pollution and congestion created by so many new homes would inevitably be huge.

* It is noted that your own plan says that stage two is to "lobby for infrastructure". The fact that these proposals are being put forward at present with such woefully inadequate planning for infrastructure is, frankly, staggering. Due to underfunding, schools and medical providers are already at breaking point; new towns such as Cambourne already prove that such places without adequate recreation facilities become soulless and unpleasant places to live. Which leads me to my final point:

* The Campaign To Protect Rural England's statement on your proposals reveal that you are offering far, far more than the government *actually requests* in terms of houses built in this area, and that this is attached to payments you expect to receive relating to the number of houses built, to make up for central government cuts. This approach would seem to be unsustainable and illogical in the extreme, and partly explains the slapdash, reckless and badly prepared approach to infrastructure noted above, not to mention the rush to bulldoze over acres and acres of rural land. Further more, CPRE also highlight: that the proposals to build on greenbelt land lack the required justifications; that a massive 30% variation in the houses proposed to be built at this stage suggests a sloppy and ill-thought-out approach to the planning of this project; and that CBC is relying heavily on large number of commuters to purchase and live in these homes, which is the least sustainable kind of development, and leads to the erosion of existing communities.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2921

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Toby Venables

Representation:

OBJECTION: NPL450

- Historic England describes plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with regard to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area.

- The whole area is prone to flooding. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

- Development is constrained by a lack of services and facilities, including healthcare, education, emergency services, retail/convenience, and leisure facilities.

- Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement.

* The rise in pollution and congestion would be unacceptable.

Full text:

OBJECTION: NPL450

I write to lodge my objections in the strongest possible terms. Overall, the entire area, including NPL450, is not set up for or appropriate for this staggering level of building. This area has already seen an increase in house building, including large sites at Potton and Biggleswade, so it is not as though CB is not doing its fair share in terms of finding space for homes for the future.

A few key points suggest this proposal is unworkable and wholly inappropriate both for residents already living here and for those who may end up living here in the future:

* The Historic Environment Planning Adviser at Historic England describes the plans proposed by CBC as "woefully inadequate" with their regards to consideration of the heritage/historical significance of the area. The council's own archaeologist states that allocation of this site would be inappropriate given the historic significance. Multi-period archaeological remains are known to survive in the area.

* The whole area is prone to flooding, with existing houses and field flooding regularly, especially in winter. Tempsford (west) is entirely located in a flood zone.

In summary of these last two points I quote from CBCs' own report on Tempsford (Appendix B, Area B Assessments): "The settlement contains sensitive environmental receptors including best and most versatile agricultural land, County Wildlife Sites and priority habitats. Tempsford (west) is located entirely located in flood zone. The settlement also contains designated heritage assets in the form of listed buildings and a Conservation Area.
Development in the west is constrained by flood risk, locally designated biodiversity (CWS) and Priority Habitats, as well as the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Networks.
TEMPSFORD SUMMARY
Capacity: Low
Development is constrained by a lack of easily accessible services and facilities, particularly healthcare, retail / convenience, and leisure facilities. Development is further constrained by the abundance of Priority Habitats and best and most versatile agricultural land in the west of the settlement, as well as sensitive heritage settings.
Whilst development of a sufficient scale could support improved service and facility provisions, and the environmental constraints can largely be avoided in the east of the settlement, development at this scale would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the rural character and appearance of the settlement. Whilst small scale development could avoid such problems it is also likely to increase reliance on the private vehicle."

* The rise in pollution and congestion created by so many new homes would inevitably be huge.

* It is noted that your own plan says that stage two is to "lobby for infrastructure". The fact that these proposals are being put forward at present with such woefully inadequate planning for infrastructure is, frankly, staggering. Due to underfunding, schools and medical providers are already at breaking point; new towns such as Cambourne already prove that such places without adequate recreation facilities become soulless and unpleasant places to live. Which leads me to my final point:

* The Campaign To Protect Rural England's statement on your proposals reveal that you are offering far, far more than the government *actually requests* in terms of houses built in this area, and that this is attached to payments you expect to receive relating to the number of houses built, to make up for central government cuts. This approach would seem to be unsustainable and illogical in the extreme, and partly explains the slapdash, reckless and badly prepared approach to infrastructure noted above, not to mention the rush to bulldoze over acres and acres of rural land. Further more, CPRE also highlight: that the proposals to build on greenbelt land lack the required justifications; that a massive 30% variation in the houses proposed to be built at this stage suggests a sloppy and ill-thought-out approach to the planning of this project; and that CBC is relying heavily on large number of commuters to purchase and live in these homes, which is the least sustainable kind of development, and leads to the erosion of existing communities.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2938

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Bronder

Representation:

NLP414/NLP084

As with my already submitted objections to developments in Everton and Tempsford, the disproportionate expansion of this relatively small area would submerge these towns and villages. I have no confidence in the commitments of any developer to produce the required infrastructure: for example there is already a serious problem with General Practice in this area. The overall effect of these overlapping (though separately listed.....) developments on the fringes of the flood plain would also be potentially serious. The identity and character of these separate villages and small town would disappear. Road congestion is already a nightmare....

Full text:

NLP414/NLP084

As with my already submitted objections to developments in Everton and Tempsford, the disproportionate expansion of this relatively small area would submerge these towns and villages. I have no confidence in the commitments of any developer to produce the required infrastructure: for example there is already a serious problem with General Practice in this area. The overall effect of these overlapping (though separately listed.....) developments on the fringes of the flood plain would also be potentially serious. The identity and character of these separate villages and small town would disappear. Road congestion is already a nightmare....